Carter v. McCormick et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
JOHN PAUL CARTER 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 6:24-cv-06052-SOH-CDC
SHERIFF McCORMICK (Garland County, Arkansas);
CHIEF DEPUTY ELROD (Garland County Detention Center)
CAPTAIN COSGROVE (GCDC);
FOOD DIRECTOR J HUNDHAUSEN (Summit Corp) 	DEFENDANTS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge, referred
this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation. 	Currently
before the Court are Motions for Summary Judgment by Defendants Cosgrove, McCormick and Elrod
(Garland County Defendants) (ECF No. 46) and Defendant Hundhausen. (ECF No. 49).
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on April 12, 2024. 	(ECF No. 1). He was directed to file an
Amended Complaint and did so on April 24, 2024. (ECF Nos. 3, 6). Plaintiff identifies himself as a
pretrial detainee and characterizes his claim as one for his conditions of confinement. (ECF No. 6 at
2, 4). 	Plaintiff alleges that on March 14, 2024, he was eating his evening meal when he noticed
something prickly and spit it out. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff identifies the prickly object as a castor bean.
(Id.). Officer Rivers, a Garland County Detention Center employee, took a picture of the bean and
downloaded it to a GCDC system. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges he is still in possession of the castor bean.
(Id. at 4-5). 	Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hundhausen served him a castor bean, knowing that
castor beans had been found numerous times in the beans served at GCDC. (Id. at 5). Plaintiff alleges
Case 6:24-cv-06052-SOH Document 66 Filed 11/03/25 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
that Defendant McCormick, Elrod, and Cosgrove were aware that other castor beans had been found.
(Id.). Plaintiff alleges that he became “sick, at my stomach, it gave me diarrhea,0F
1 I went to medical
and was treated for such symptoms seen on 3.16.2024 by nurse.” (Id.).
Plaintiff names all Defendants for this claim. (Id. at 4-5). He proceeds against them in their
official and individual capacities. (Id. at 5). He provides not facts for the official capacity claim. (Id.
at 5). Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of five million dollars for “physical and
suffering caused by deprivation.” (Id. at 6).
The Garland County Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on March 26,
2025. (ECF No. 46). Defendants correctly construe Plaintiff’s claims of exposure to a “castor bean”
as a single claim of unconstitutional conditions of confinement regarding adequate meals. (ECF No.
47 at 6 n. 1). They argue they are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because: 1.) There
is no proof of personal involvement by the Garland County Defendants; 2.). Plaintiff was not
subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement; 3.) Defendants are entitled to qualified
immunity; and 4.) There is no basis for official capacity/county liability. (ECF No. 46 at 2).
Defendants acknowledge that the castor bean has spiny seed capsules and can be fatal if only
a few seeds are ingested, citing the North Carolina State Extension Service website. (ECF No. 47 at
8-9). They deny that the object in Plaintiff’s food was a castor bean. They also stress that he did not
actually ingest the object. (Id. at 9). They further argue that, even if Plaintiff had ingested a single
castor bean, he has a most alleged negligence, which does not rise to the level of a constitutional
violation. (Id. at 10). They emphasize that::
Plaintiff does not allege, or even speculate, who placed the castor bean within the food
on his dinner tray or how it may have gotten there. Plaintiff does not allege that any of
the named Defendants within this lawsuit placed the castor bean within the food on
his lunch tray. Plaintiff agreed that, because of the way trays are prepared and
distributed, there was no way that someone could have intentionally placed the alleged
castor bean in a tray specifically intended for the Plaintiff. Further, Plaintiff does not
1 The actual spelling was diearra. The Court will infer that Plaintiff meant diarrhea.
Case 6:24-cv-06052-SOH Document 66 Filed 11/03/25 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
allege that any of the Garland County Defendants would have been involved in the
preparation or service of the tray on March 14, 2024.
(Id. at 9).
Defendants argue that the presence of the castor bean on a single occasion was not known to
the County or “somehow, intentionally punitive.” 	(Id. at 9-10). 	They note that GCDC are not
involved in the preparation of meals; this service is contracted with a third party. (Id. at 9-11). They
note that Plaintiff also cannot prove that he suffered any actual physical harm from contact with the
alleged castor bean. Plaintiff alleges stomach distress and diarrhea, but medical records indicate he
refused anti-diarrheal medication when it was offered on March 16 and 17, 2024. (Id. at 11). They
also note that Plaintiff did not provide any medical evidence or other proof that he was harmed by
allegedly having an enclosed castor bean in his mouth for a short period of time. (Id.). Finally, they
argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity and he has failed to provide any basis for official
capacity liability. (Id. at 12-13).
Defendant Hundhausen also filed her Motion for Summary Judgment on March 26, 2025.
(ECF No. 49). Defendant Hundhausen adopts and incorporates all assertions of fact and arguments
of law made by the Garland County Defendants in their Motion. (Id. at 2). She further incorporates
the Garland County Defendants’ exhibits, including Plaintiff deposition testimony. (Id.). Defendant
Hundhausen argues she is entitled to summary judgment because: 1.) Plaintiff did not allege and
cannot prove that Defendant Hundhausen served contaminated food to him with the intent to punish;
2.) Plaintiff’s claims do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation; 3.) Plaintiff cannot establish
that any policy or custom of Summit led to a constitutional violation because the policies are
constitutional on their face; 3.) Plaintiff has not established that he suffered any injury as a result of
any actions of Defendant Hundhausen. (ECF No. 50).
On March 31, 2025, the Court entered two Orders directing Plaintiff to submit his responses
to each of the summary judgment motions. 	(ECF Nos. 53, 54). 	Both Orders provided explicit
Case 6:24-cv-06052-SOH Document 66 Filed 11/03/25 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
instructions to Plaintiff to follow in submitting his Responses. He was advised that he must submit a
Separate Statement of Disputed Facts. (Id.). He was also advised that he must cite to documents he
intended to rely upon using the ECF Number and page. (Id.). He was clearly instructed that “[t]he
Court will not look through the entire case file to locate a document supporting your factual
statements.” (Id.). 	Plaintiff’s Responses were due April 21, 2025. (Id.).
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Address change on May 1, 2025. (ECF No. 55). Although neither
Order had been returned as undeliverable, the Court resent the Orders and set a new deadline of June
5, 2025. (ECF No. 56). Plaintiff filed a single Response on May 15, 2025. (ECF No. 57). Plaintiff
filed no separate Statement of Disputed Facts. 	He raised no arguments in his Response, instead
stating:
I John Paul Carter am providing all the evidence I have with me Im currently am in
ADC and can’t get other evidence from the County Jail. 	Im sending my writing
responses/grievances/photo took by Officer Rivers of Garland County Detention
Center/addresses of witnesses/sick calls.
(Id. at 1). Plaintiff provides no citations or descriptions of documents, simply attaching 11 pages of
exhibits. (Id. at 2-12).
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Address Change on July 25, 2025, indicating that he had been
released from incarceration. (ECF No. 61). The Court directed Plaintiff to submit a free-world IFP
application, and Plaintiff was granted IFP status on October 15, 2025. (ECF Nos. 62-64).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate if, after viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986), the record “shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 	“Once a party
moving for summary judgment has made a sufficient showing, the burden rests with the non-moving
Case 6:24-cv-06052-SOH Document 66 Filed 11/03/25 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
party to set forth specific facts, by affidavit or other evidence, showing that a genuine issue of material
fact exists.” National Bank of Commerce v. Dow Chemical Co., 165 F.3d 602, 607 (8th Cir. 1999).
The non-moving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt
as to the material facts.” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. “They must show there is sufficient evidence
to support a jury verdict in their favor.” National Bank, 165 F.3d at 607 (citing Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)). “A case founded on speculation or suspicion is insufficient
to survive a motion for summary judgment.” Id. (citing Metge v. Baehler, 762 F.2d 621, 625 (8th
Cir. 1985)). “When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted
by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the
facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380
(2007).
III. ANALYSIS
A. 	Plaintiff’s Failure to Obey the Court’s Order and Local Rules of Civil Procedure
Plaintiff failed to submit a separate Statement of Disputed Facts as directed by the Court.
Local Rule 56.1(a) requires any party moving for summary judgment to submit a separate statement
of undisputed material facts. 	Local Rule 56.1(b) requires the non-moving party opposing the
summary judgment motion to file a separate statement of disputed facts. Pro se inmates are advised
of this requirement in the Order directing them to file a summary judgment response. Pro se inmates
are also advised of this requirement in the District’s Prisoner Litigation Guide, which contains an
example to help them understand the concept of using the same paragraph numbering as that used by
the moving party in their own statement of disputed facts.
Due to Plaintiff’s failure, Defendants’ Statement of Facts is deemed admitted pursuant to
Local Rule 56.1(c). In determining whether there are genuine disputes of material fact, however, the
Court has also considered the allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s verified Amended Complaint. 	A
Case 6:24-cv-06052-SOH Document 66 Filed 11/03/25 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
verified complaint is the equivalent of an affidavit for summary judgment purposes. 	See, e.g.,
Roberson v. Hayti Police Dep’t., 241 F.3d 992, 994-95 (8th Cir. 2001). “[A] complaint signed and
dated as true under penalty of perjury satisfies the requirements of a verified complaint . . . .” Id. As
the Court in Roberson pointed out, “[a]lthough a party may not generally rest on his pleadings to
create a fact issue sufficient to survive summary judgment, the facts alleged in a verified complaint
need not be repeated in a responsive affidavit to survive the summary judgment motion. 	Id. 	The
Court will, therefore, “piece[] together [Plaintiff’s] version of the facts from the verified complaint .
. . .” McClanahan v. Young, No. 4:13-cv-04140, 2016 WL 520983, *1 (D.S.D. Feb. 5, 2016).
B. 	Pretrial Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
As a pretrial detainee, this Court analyzes Plaintiff's conditions of confinement claims under
the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Stearns v. Inmate Services Corporation, 957 F.3d
902, 906 (8th Cir. 2020) (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 525 n.16 (1979)). In articulating the
standard governing pretrial detainees” claims related to conditions of confinement, the Supreme Court
in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) held that the government may detain defendants prior to trial
and “may subject them to the restrictions and conditions of a detention facility so long as those
conditions and restrictions do not amount to punishment, or otherwise violate the Constitution.” Id.
at 536-37. There are two ways to determine whether conditions of confinement rise to the level of
punishment. First, “a plaintiff could show that the conditions were intentionally punitive.” Id. at 538.
Alternatively, “if there is no expressly demonstrated intent to punish, the plaintiff could also show
that the conditions were not reasonably related to a legitimate government purpose or were excessive
in relation to that purpose.” Stearns, 957 F.3d at 907 (quoting Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 538-39). 	Not
every disability imposed during pretrial detention amounts to punishment in the constitutional sense.”
Smith v. Copeland, 87 F.3d 265, 268 (8th Cir. 1996). “There is a de minimis level of imposition with
which the Constitution is not concerned.” 	Id. “In considering whether the conditions of pretrial
Case 6:24-cv-06052-SOH Document 66 Filed 11/03/25 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
detention are unconstitutionally punitive, [courts] review the totality of the circumstances of a pretrial
detainee's confinement.” Morris v. Zefferi, 601 F.3d 805, 810 (8th Cir. 2010).
This case survived mandatory preservice screening under the Prison Litigation Reform Act
because Plaintiff alleged that a poisonous object was found in his food, and he then suffered stomach
issues and diarrhea shortly after exposure. After review of the summary judgment record it is clear
that any imposition upon Plaintiff was de minimis at most.
It has not been established that the object Plaintiff found in his meal was a castor bean.
Plaintiff testified in his deposition that another inmate told him it was a castor bean, but he had no
proof that it was a castor bean. (ECF No. 48-7 at 14, 30).
Plaintiff’s allegations of stomach issues and diarrhea issues are internally inconsistent and
contradicted by the summary judgment record. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges he became “sick
to his stomach” and had diarrhea after eating his meal. In his deposition, however, he denied that he
had any stomach issues, stating he “never really felt sick. I just – all of a sudden got diarrhea real
bad.” (ECF No. 48-7 at 16, 22). He repeated that “I never really felt sick.” (Id.). He testified that
he was housed in an open pod that night and he could not recall if any other inmate got sick or used
the bathroom frequently after eating the same meal. (Id. at 15-16). He testified the nurse offered him
anti-diarrheal medication, which he called a “concrete pill,” he took it, and it helped his diarrhea to
some extent. (Id. at 17). Plaintiff’s medical records, however, indicate that he refused anti-diarrheal
medication when he saw the Nurse on March 16 and 17, 2024. (ECF No. 48 at 2; 48-4 at 1). He also
testified that the nurse did not tell him that his diarrhea was related to the object in his food, even
though he mentioned the event in his sick call request and told her about it in his sick call. 	(Id.).
Plaintiff provides no additional medical evidence in his Response. To the extent Plaintiff may have
experienced some form of diarrhea that was not severe enough to require medication, the Court also
notes Plaintiff’s medical records indicate that Plaintiff took the antibiotic amoxicillin on March 13
Case 6:24-cv-06052-SOH Document 66 Filed 11/03/25 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
and 14, 2024. (ECF No. 48-4). Plaintiff testified in his deposition that he started taking the amoxicillin
on March 9, 2024. (ECF No. 48-7 at 30). Diarrhea is a common side effect of antibiotics such as
amoxicillin.1F
2
Further, the summary judgment record is silent as to any personal involvement by any named
Defendant, let alone an intentional act to punish him with poison. 	"Liability under Section 1983
requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the deprivation of rights." Madewell v. Roberts,
909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990) (citing Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370 (1976)). In his
deposition Plaintiff testified that he did not believe that Defendant Hundhausen “did anything on
purpose.” (ECF No. 48-7 at 22). Plaintiff testified that other inmates eating with him that day did
not find any foreign objects in their beans and that he did not expect Hundhausen to inspect each tray
before it was served to each inmate. (Id. at 26-28). He further testified he does not know what they
could have done differently. (Id. at 28). But he heard rumors that other inmates had found foreign
objects in their beans, and he believed that if that was true, they should not continue serving the same
things. (Id.).
As to the Garland County Defendants, Plaintiff testified that he does not know if they are
involved in preparing meal trays and none of them served him his meal on the night in question. (ECF
No. 48-7 at 35). He testified that he named them as Defendants because “they’re over the jail”2F
3 and
he believed Defendant Cosgrove had replied to his grievance.3F
4 (Id. at 	He did not believe anyone put
the foreign object in his tray on purpose. (Id. at 38-39). He also did not believe they were accidentally
2 www.pdr.net (last accessed Oct. 23, 2025).
3 A supervisor cannot be held liable for an employee's unconstitutional actions based on a theory of
respondeat superior. InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA v. U. of Iowa, 408 F. Supp. 3d 960, 977
(S.D. Iowa 2019), aff'd, 5 F.4th 855 (8th Cir. 2021).
4 “Participation in the administrative grievance process alone is insufficient to establish liability under
§ 1983.” Lonix v. Lane, No. 2:25-CV-00012-JM-PSH, 2025 WL 1129012, at *1 (E.D. Ark. Mar. 31,
2025), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:25-CV-00012-JM-PSH, 2025 WL 1132320 (E.D.
Ark. Apr. 16, 2025) (citing Rowe v. Norris, 198 Fed. App'x 579, 580 (8th Cir. 2006)).
Case 6:24-cv-06052-SOH Document 66 Filed 11/03/25 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
involved in the placement of the foreign object. (Id. at 39). He does not believe any of them knew
that there was a foreign object on his tray. (Id. at 42). Plaintiff testified again that other people had
found castor beans in their food and the Garland County Defendant should have “stepped in” and
ordered new beans. 	(Id. at 41). 	At the same time, he testified that the Summit was in charge of
kitchen duties. (Id. at 39). He did not believe that any of the Garland County Defendants caused his
illness or diarrhea. (Id. at 43).
Plaintiff agreed that his problem “really is that there were previous allegations of castor beans
in the beans,” and he believes that new beans should have been ordered. (ECF No. 48-7 at 44). He
also testified, however, that he did not work in the kitchen and did not know if or when new beans
had been ordered. (Id. at 44-45). When informed that there was no evidence of food contamination
when earlier reports were investigated, Plaintiff emphasized that he still found something in his food.
(Id. at 46). Plaintiff agreed, however, that this was the only time he found a foreign object in his food
at GCDC. 	(Id. at 46). An isolated incident involving a foreign object in the food does not state a
claim of constitutional dimension. See e.g., Wishon v. Gammon, 978 F.2d 446, 449 (8th Cir. 1992)
(prisoners have a right to nutritionally adequate food, but Wishon presented no evidence that the food
he was served was nutritionally inadequate or prepared in a manner presenting an immediate danger
to his health, or that his health suffered as a result of the food); Hamm v. DeKalb County, 774 F.2d
1567, 1572 (11th Cir. 1985) (“The fact that the food occasionally contains foreign objects . . . does
not amount to a constitutional deprivation”); Lunsford v. Reynolds, 376 F.Supp. 526, 527 (W.D. Va.
1974) (“The only contention concerning food which is detailed at all, is the inmates’ complaint that
their food frequently contains insects. 	Nevertheless, occasional incidents of a foreign object
contained in food, while regrettable, do not present a question of constitutional proportion”).
Case 6:24-cv-06052-SOH Document 66 Filed 11/03/25 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
Thus, Plaintiff’s allegations are contradicted by the summary judgment record such that no
reasonable jury could believe them. 	There is no material question of fact, and all Defendants are
entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is recommended that the Motions for Summary Judgment by Defendants
Cosgrove, McCormick and Elrod (Garland County Defendants) (ECF No. 46) and Defendant
Hundhausen (ECF No. 49) be GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) be
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Referral Status: This case should not remain referred because all matters have been
recommended for dismissal in this Report and Recommendation.
The parties have fourteen days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation in
which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 	The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 	The parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court.
DATED this 3rd day of November 2025.
/s/ Christy Comstock
HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:24-cv-06052-SOH Document 66 Filed 11/03/25 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>